Abortion- "It is her body!" But is it?

No, the fetus doesn't have a choice, it's not a person.

Who is this Royal "we" who should make women slaves to their whims??? What if some of your Royal "we" say abort?


Whether a woman takes time to bat an eye has nothing to do with her right to an abortion.....and DUH, that's the reason FOR abortion, the woman doesn't want the baby....

- - - Updated - - -

Well, they aren't exactly lining up in droves to adopt living kids.....(unless they're newborn, perfect and white)....

 

Natural Law, from which Natural Rights are derived, establishes that the "Self" is the only thing we actually own. The Natural Right of Self is the foundation for all other Natural Rights and without it Natural Rights cannot exist.

So yes, the woman's body is the only thing she literally owns and no one else has any right to it or a right to violate it.

Under Natural Law a fetus cannot have any "Natural Rights" that conflict with the Natural Right of Self of the Woman. When conflict exists then the Woman's Right of Self takes precedent. Natural Rights cannot conflict with another Natural Right and the pre-establishment of the Natural Right of Self of the Women prohibits the establishment of the Natural Right to Life for the fetus that would violate the Natural Right of Self of the Woman. Only upon birth, when the fetus is no longer violating the Right of Self of the Woman, does it acquire the Right to Life.

A woman can voluntarily do whatever she want's for the fetus but she can't be forced to do anything involuntary for the fetus. The fetus can represent potential life but until birth it's arguably not a person and Natural Rights only apply once personhood is established. The discussion isn't actually on life but instead ownership because the question is whether the woman owns her body.

Final note the Natural Rights of the Person, based upon Natural Law, can't be ignored because if they're ignored then no philosophical argument for the life of the fetus exists at all.

 

I have heard of this, but I think the case has been exaggerated by people like Dr David Reardon who use data from countries (like Finland and Sweden) where prostitution is legal and the women most likely to have 2 or more abortions are probably engaged in a profession with unique risks. Are you aware of any statistics on this from the United States?

If we believe the pro-life websites, abortion is such a dangerous procedure it is unlikely that any woman would survive very many of them. If we are going to doubt the pro-life websites, then we should start by doubting their claim that every living cell with unique DNA is an actual person with rights and moral agency.

 

So, we can assume that you were a virgin until you married?

 

I wonder if he knows that some married women have abortions too? Lol.

 

A fetus doesn't have much in the way of consciousness of thought and decision making skills.

I don't like abortion or anything, but I don't think that is anyone's decision to make for another person. It's not really anyone else's business except those involved. There are multiple reasons why someone might have an abortion, such as being a mentally unstable person, suffering from a mental illness of some kind and not being able to handle the stress of a pregnancy. Also, people like drug addicts, alcoholics, homeless people, people who maybe already have a bunch of kids and just can't afford to have another? It is a very personal decision.

 

The female does, unless of course you are happy for others including the state to make decisions for your children simply because they don't agree with the choices you have made for them?

and how is this a problem, or are you advocating that the state should intervene when people make decisions for the simple reason they don't want to do something?

 

Interesting .. problem is there is no way to show that Natural Law even exists, it is an assumption humans have made .. Natural law is derived from nature, nature has a meaning of "The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations." IF it is humans that make the assumption of Natural Law bestowing certain rights onto humans then it is no longer Natural.

Rights are founded on ethical value judgements, which may be empirical or rational. A right is that which confers legitimacy upon an action or a belief. For example, if one has a right to free speech, the act of speaking freely is given legitimacy. This legitimacy derives from whichever authority conferred the right in question.

A right is different from a law of nature because a right is a protected option not a diktat. A right to life does not mean that one will live, it means that one’s life is protected. However, a law of nature is only a law of nature because it is a diktat and is always true.

In order to discover whether Natural Rights have been conferred by Nature, one must ask if there is anything that can be deduced from the workings of Nature that indicates a morality? Aristotle argues in Book 1 of Politics that “Nature does nothing in vain” and few would doubt that there is order in Nature. This does not, however, imply that there is a morality or ethical structure within the natural world. Nature certainly works in accordance with the laws of natural science but scientific laws cannot be equated with rights. Nature must have morality to be able to confer rights.

Darwin in The Descent of Man and On the Origin of Species proposes and produces empirical evidence to support the claim that the natural world is based on survival of the fittest through Natural Selection. This suggests that the natural world is entirely amoral and that the only inherent and fundamental – that is, Natural – principle is that of survival. Obviously, Darwin’s work is only theory based on fact and not fact itself. This implies that, just as with a Supreme Being, it is exceedingly difficult to prove that Nature is essentially amoral. However, if one accepts what is currently the most likely explanation of the facts, then it implies that the natural world cannot have conferred any Natural Rights except, arguably, a right to survive. This is arguable because whilst it is true that the natural world enshrines the desire to survive in its structure, it is difficult to claim that the natural world did so based on a moral or ethical value judgement. Nature is a only quasiliving organism which, although containing sentient life within it, is not truly sentient itself.

In short Nature couldn't careless whether humans live or not, no more or less than any other creature on this planet .. I would there fore say that there is little evidence to support the idea of Natural rights.

 

Seems to me once a baby is created, or begins to create chemically, its a seperate body/entity and not "hers".

Also it's not that baby's choice to "live off her body", and that is quite an ignorant comment.

Do what you can to stop the life from starting it's formation, but once it starts...to stop it is objectively murder.

 

no problem with that what so ever .. but .. as a separate body/entity is must gain separate consent to use her body.

Choice or intent has nothing to do with it .. look up objective fault, even better I'll explain what it is - objective fault is a category of action in which the law assigns fault even without the presence of conscious intention ie the fetus's behavior is objectively at fault for causing pregnancy, even though it has no knowledge, consciousness, or intention of doing so. The only entity that can turn a non-pregnant woman into a pregnant one is a fertilized ovum that successfully implants into the uterine wall.

Rubbish, abortion falls within the justification of self-defence.

 

Nope! He belongs to the OLD school that believes Married Women are saints because a Man has blessed them with Marriage and Married Women only have sex for
Pro-Cre-A-Tion and never moan or move when they do ....

 

Well if a woman decides to terminate simply because a baby would be "inconvenient" for her, maybe the state should intervene on the foetuses behalf and say "you can't do that"?

 

It does not need consent to use her body. It did not ask to be there may she put it there. It's now her obligation. What an absurd point of view lolol.

It's objectively not self defense lolol

Your argument is not at all logical, and would only have a resemblance of sense if she was forcefully raped. Otherwise you creating strawman lolol.

 

What don't you get about the fact that women have abortions because having a baby would be INCONDAMNVENIENT.....

That is WHY women get abortions, a pregnancy would be INCONVENIENT.

There are NO laws stating that women can only get an abortion if you and the state approve...what an EGO!


WHY do YOU think YOU should Rule Over Women and decide why and when they should abort or gestate? Where did this idea come from...?? It's weird..

 

Because it's not thier body they are murdering lolol. Common sense is lacking these days in people. Complete lack of logic.

 

Aborting because a pregnancy is inconvenient has nothing to do with whether abortion is murder or not..it isn't

............. but go argue that OLD WEAK RIDICULOUS argument with someone else...and calling abortion murder shows you're correct, people ARE lacking common sense and logic...

 

It objectively is. Your argument is illogical and doomed to fail from the beginning.

 

Really .. so when a mentally incompetent person starts to injure you without your consent the state should step in on their behalf and say you can't defend yourself against them?

 

When the female puts the baby there, yes it is now her obligation. She is not a victim lolol. You have not thought out your argument at all. Completely lacking in logic.

 

Well actually it does or do you not realise that ALL persons require consent to impose on other persons REGARDLESS of how they came to be in the position they are, and please do explain how a female "puts" the unborn in her womb .. by what process does she exert control over the sperm, the ovum and the fertilized ovum?

Yep it is .. your denial of that reality is nothing more than opinion or do you have some evidence to back up your opinion .. I do.

Perfectly logical argument and I have the prove to back it up . .do you.

Oh I see you are of the illusion that consenting to sexual intercourse is some how consenting to pregnancy, would you care to explain the rationale to that opinion please.

 

Yes if a woman chooses to abort for no good reason perhaps we should leave it to God and the Universe to judge her, and as this is the Religion/Philosophy thread I'll toss this verse about uncaring mothers into the arena as food for thought-
God said- “Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you!" (Isaiah 49:15)

 

Another strawman, the baby whom is forced to be there by the female is now the females obligation. This is objective truth. To kill it then is objectively murder.

You have no argument

 

Says one who has no argument at all .....

 

The only illogical argument here is yours, how anyone with even a low level of education can even suggest that the "female puts the baby there" is beyond me . .do yourself a favour and actually do some medical research before posting such illogical things.

nope it is not, she has no obligation to use her body to aid another person.

Legally she is, she is as much a victim as the person who is raped . .both are violations of her right to who, what, where and when her body is used by another person.

Is that so, strange really as all I have seen from you is your arbitrary denial, where as I have researched the issue fully - http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/363145-abortion-choice-consent.html

 

As I suspected this thread developed into the ordinary pro-life vs pro-choice jibberish instead of people sticking to the topic that is the status of a fetus' personhood.